You are here

Potteries Medical Centre Good

Reports


Review carried out on 10 June 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Potteries Medical Centre on 10 June 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Potteries Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 7 March 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Potteries Medical Centre on 7 March 2020. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

Inspection carried out on 12 and 27 July 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We previously inspected Potteries Medical Centre on 10 August 2016. Following this comprehensive inspection, the overall rating for the practice was Requires Improvement. A total of two breaches of legal requirements were found and two requirement notices were served. The practice provided us with an action plan detailing how they were going to make the required improvements in relation to:

Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014: Safe care and treatment.

Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014: Good Governance.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Potteries Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

We carried out an announced comprehensive follow up inspection at Potteries Medical Centre on 12 and 27 July 2017. Overall the practice is now rated as Good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses.
  • There was a formal system in place to log, review, discuss and act on external alerts, such as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) alerts.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with kindness, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care and access to services as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Data from the national GP patient survey published July 2017 showed patient satisfaction continued to be above local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and national averages for all but two areas measured.
  • There was a clear leadership structure in place and staff felt supported by the management team. The practice responded positively to feedback from staff and patients.
  • The practice had improved procedures for the storage of emergency medicines and regular checks were undertaken to ensure medicines were fit for use.
  • Effective systems were now in place for identifying and assessing the risks to the health and safety of patients and staff.
  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • Patients found it easy to make an appointment, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • Governance arrangements had improved to include the formalisation of clinical and reception staff meetings.
  • The practice was limited by the size of their facilities, however it was equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • Clinical audits demonstrated quality improvement in patient outcomes.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Consider obtaining written consent for the insertion of intrauterine (coil) contraceptive devices.
  • Review the security of treatment and consultation rooms.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 10 August 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Potteries Medical Practice on 10 August 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events. However regular reviews of significant events had not been carried out to identify trends.

  • Most staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

  • Patients were positive about their interactions with staff and said they were treated with compassion, dignity and they were involved in decisions about their care.

  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.

  • Risks to patients were not always assessed and well managed; there was a lack of overview of safety systems such as legionella checks, gas safety checks, fire drills and staff recruitment processes.

  • Urgent appointments were available on the same day. Patients told us they found it easy to get an appointment.

  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

  • Staff felt valued and supported in their work by the management team.

  • Information about how to complain was not readily accessible. The practice had only received verbal complaints but these had not been consistently recorded or analysed to identify any common trends.

  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed that patients rated their experiences and satisfaction higher for all but two aspects of care compared with the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and the national averages.

  • We saw a number of audits had been completed and results were used to drive improvement.

However, there were areas where the provider must make improvements. The provider must:

  • Implement effective systems for identifying, assessing, monitoring and mitigating risks.
  • Ensure recruitment arrangements cover all necessary employment checks for all staff employed.
  • Risk assess the need for inclusion of atropine within the emergency drugs kit for use in the event of cervical shock when performing a coil fitting as per best practice guidance.
  • Ensure that a risk assessment for Legionella is carried out in respect of the building.
  • Ensure safety checks are carried out on the gas boiler in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
  • Maintain a log of fire tests and carry out regular fire drills.

In addition the provider should:

  • Implement an effective process to check that patients on high risk medicines are being monitored before issuing prescriptions.

  • Carry out a regular analysis of significant events to identify any common trends, maximise learning and help mitigate further errors.

  • Review the arrangements for the storage of patient files and emergency medicines.

  • Produce a written risk assessment as to why an Automated External Defibrillator AED is not required.

  • Hold clinical and practice meetings on a more regular basis.

  • Ensure all staff have an annual appraisal and timely access to training.

  • Improve the procedure to log, review, discuss and act on alerts received that may affect patient safety.

  • Improve the recording of all complaints received and the identification of trends.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice